Disclaimer: The author is a recovering Catholic anarchist who considers Phil Knight (the founder of Nike) his mortal enemy (he personally sabotaged my first foray into social activism) yet the author recently purchased a pair of Nike shoes and four pairs of Nike socks because they're comfortable, affordable and attractive.
Everybody's got their biases. The ideal of neutrality says that news should be produced without "fear or favor"; that viewpoints and opinions should be left out of news production. Fair enough. But everybody's got a viewpoint, and, like handwriting or the way you walk, it comes out even if you try to hide it.
Maybe it's better to be open about your viewpoint. If you're writing for a paper about an issue in which your paper has a stake, make it very clear to your reader where you're coming from. Besides, it's so easy today to find information; trying to hide a conflict of interest is foolish.
The idea, sanctified by the mainstream media, that they are offering you just the facts is only half the story. Anyone who examines the facts they left out, the stories they skipped, the placement of the stories they included, the attention to details and context, their advertisers, their parent companies, etc. can come away feeling bamboozled.
So transparency attempts to rectify the shortcomings of the old ideal. Nobody can get to every story nor can they give what you consider the proper weight to each story. They can be open; they can have a dialogue with their readers. They can say where they're coming from, why they make the decisions they make, what potential conflicts of interest could affect their reporting. A good idea, but is it enough?
Forbes.com recently ran an article about how Politico.com, the website/print publication/video news outlet, is hoping to turn a profit next year. The article explains, in part, how Politico has started to make money. Their print version is their biggest earner, even though it is only distributed in Washington and is "mostly free".
Their website receives more ad revenue from the Obama campaign than anywhere else (second is the Democratic National Committee).
Their CEO was a member of the Reagan Administration (he has some other connections that seem out of place in the news business). The article goes on to explain that their plan is to start selling political coverage to newspapers that can no longer afford to produce their own.
Should the connections of those running a paper and the company sources of revenue matter?
What good does it do if Politico is transparent when their coverage is running in other papers which don't have to admit to Politico's potential biases?
By Kevin Patra
September 7, 2008 10:20 PM
Good call on Politico. Your final question is a good one, is it the responsibility of Forbes and others to make sure people know another sources biases? My initial reaction is 'no' because they did cite their source; but a minor point in the article or an asterisk and comment at the bottom showing these biases might go a long way.
I also like your intro, but I wish you would have come back to it later, pointing how it either proved your point, or was irrelevant, it maybe would have tied it together. How did Knight kill sabotage your foray?--not important but it made me wonder.
By Mark Evitt
September 8, 2008 11:18 PM
Where do you think you draw the line at disclaimers? I personally like to read brief bios about authors - it gives me a little background knowledge that helps me evaluate what the author is writing. At the same time, a blanket disclaimer policy will soon have authors and their publications searching for things to disclose, which may lessen hard-hitting reporting.